45ACP Pistol vs 30 Carbine M1

[FunGramps]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

If RUGER made a copy of one there would be some serious negotiations with the Boss happening

If Ruger made a copy, I'd be the first one at the door!
In the 60's my father and many of his fellow officers had not only a .12 gauge up front in their patrol car but also carried a surplus M1 in the trunk. They were inexpensive, readily available and did the job in the day.

[Mike Irwin]

One thing I've said before and I'll say it again...

I really think the carbine would have been a LOT more effective had it been adopted for a cartridge based on the .351 SL cartridge and not the .32 SL cartridge.

A modified .351 cartridge could have been bumped up to nearly double the energy of the .30 Carbine.

It would have had a high trajectory but over the expected general engagement range of the carbine, no more than about 400 yards, that wouldn't have been that big of a deal while the heavier bullet with a lot more punching power would have made the carbine a LOT more effective.

[44 AMP]

I really think the carbine would have been a LOT more effective had it been adopted for a cartridge based on the .351 SL cartridge and not the .32 SL cartridge.

A modified .351 cartridge could have been bumped up to nearly double the energy of the .30 Carbine.

There's no doubt in my mind you are absolutely correct, it would be more effective down range.

But, what about the other end?? The .351 is longer, and fatter than the .30 carbine, and has a pronounced rim.

Could they have fit a round that size and power into a rifle as small and light as the M1 Carbine???

And even if the gun didn't need to be heavier, what about the INCREASED recoil?? There's no free lunch.

I recently heard of the results of a few folks who did "powder for power" work with the M1 Carbine back in the early 60s. They increased the pressure, and modded the rifle to run it, and got the MV up to 2300fps. One of the things they found out was that with increased cartridge power, the mild recoil of the .,30 carbine went away, and that sweet light little rifle kicked painfully.

I can pretty much guarantee you that, while it would have been a better stopper, if the carbine had kicked hard, it wouldn't have been nearly as well liked as it was.

.351 specs show a 180gr in the 1800fps range. You can match, and even exceed that with a .44Mag carbine. That level of recoil in the light M1 carbine would be unpleasant, at least for me.

[Pumpkin]

I feel if it had been chambered for the 351SL it’s civilian popularity would have been diminished, maybe. I think it would have appealed to a different type of shooter.

As I have noted, it was my introduction into shooting a centerfire rifle.

To a 12-13 year old it was indescribable and I believe those easy shooting characteristics help it’s favorability amongst everyday shooters.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

One thing I've said before and I'll say it again...

I really think the carbine would have been a LOT more effective had it been adopted for a cartridge based on the .351 SL cartridge and not the .32 SL cartridge.

A modified .351 cartridge could have been bumped up to nearly double the energy of the .30 Carbine.

It would have had a high trajectory but over the expected general engagement range of the carbine, no more than about 400 yards, that wouldn't have been that big of a deal while the heavier bullet with a lot more punching power would have made the carbine a LOT more effective.

The Winchester 1907 seems along the lines of what you’re thinking of.

Forgotten Weapons had 2 videos recently going over a version used by Dillinger gang members. The second video has some shooting footage.

https://youtu.be/7q5JDX0CHag?si=tCXe13vnTolA5dd3

https://youtu.be/7e84HVoxpkw?si=eNdorXDDgoF0tt5V

[Mike Irwin]

"But, what about the other end?? The .351 is longer, and fatter than the .30 carbine, and has a pronounced rim."

Noted that I said MODIFIED .351 cartridge.

The .30 Carbine cartridge wasn't an exact copy of the .32 WSL cartridge; it was modified.

Had the .351 been used as the starting point for a carbine cartridge, it too would have been modified. The rim would have been trimmed, the bullet lightly lightened somewhat, and, given the advances in powders over the 30 years since its introduction, it might well have been shortened. Or it could have stayed exactly the same.

"Could they have fit a round that size and power into a rifle as small and light as the M1 Carbine???"

Who said that they would have had to? The important thing is that it would still have been lighter, shorter, handier than a Garand, likely a lot less expensive than the M1 Thompson (the M3 wasn't even remotely thought of yet) and have a lot longer range, and a lot easier to train with, hit with, and more powerful than an M1911.

Would it have been as light and trim as what eventually became the M1 Carbine? No, likely not, but it very likely would not have been very much heavier; I'd estimate no more than 16 ounces heavier.

But it would more than hit all of the marks that the military was looking for in a carbine, and been more capable than a Thompson or an M1911 in the hands of marginally trained troops.


"And even if the gun didn't need to be heavier, what about the INCREASED recoil?? There's no free lunch."

OH MY GOD! THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MILLIONS OF POOR GIS INJURED OR EVEN KILLED BY THE RECOIL OF THEIR OWN CARBINES!

Or at least they would have gotten horrific cases of PTSD like that CNN reporter who fired an AR-15 a few years ago.

The military's primary consideration wasn't the recoil sensitivity of the troops who went to war in World War II. It was arming them with something that would be a LOT more effective than a pistol.

No, there's no such thing as a free lunch. But wouldn't you rather go into a potential combat situation with a weapon that would give you a much better chance of actually making it to the lunch line instead of to a line of body bags?

And imagine being one of those Marines who had to spent the entirety of the battle of Guadalcanal fighting the Japanese with an M1903 bolt action, which actually DOES kick like a son of a bitch?

I've fired more than a few rounds out a .351 WSL rifle over the years. Straight blowback, heavy as crap, and not at all pleasant.

The gas operated system on a carbine would have tamed that to a degree.

I suspect that adrenalin dump of actually being in combat would have also tamed it quite a bit, as well.

[Mike Irwin]

"I feel if it had been chambered for the 351SL it’s civilian popularity would have been diminished, maybe. I think it would have appealed to a different type of shooter."

I very much disagree with you.

Its civilian popularity would have likely been the same, if not something greater.

Couple of reasons.

1. Cheap carbines through the DCM and surplus markets (same as with the .30 Carbine).

2. Cheap ammo through the DCM and surplus markets (same as with the .30 Carbine).

3. It would have been chambered for a cartridge that was actually a capable eastern deer cartridge. The .30 Carbine was never that.

[Mike Irwin]

"The Winchester 1907 seems along the lines of what you’re thinking of."

The Winchester 1907 is absolutely NOT what I'm thinking of.

The 1907 and its brothers (1905 and 1910) were pure blowback rifles. They were heavy, clumsy and, in the case of the 1907 and 1910, had pretty nasty recoil because they were blowback.

They also tended to be fragile and quite unreliable.

The French received several hundred 1907s during WW I and were not at all impressed with them.

They did like the cartridge to a degree, and even necked it down to take an 8mm Lebele Balle D bullet as the basis for a prototype semi-automatic carbine of their own.

The 8mm Ribolleye (sp?) never went anywhere because they were still working on it when the war ended.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"The Winchester 1907 seems along the lines of what you’re thinking of."

The Winchester 1907 is absolutely NOT what I'm thinking of.

The 1907 and its brothers (1905 and 1910) were pure blowback rifles. They were heavy, clumsy and, in the case of the 1907 and 1910, had pretty nasty recoil because they were blowback.

Yeah I’m aware they were straight blowback. It’s still a semiautomatic carbine firing the cartridge you’re describing, so I’m not sure “absolutely NOT” really applies, but you do you.

[Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"I feel if it had been chambered for the 351SL it’s civilian popularity would have been diminished, maybe. I think it would have appealed to a different type of shooter."

I very much disagree with you.

Its civilian popularity would have likely been the same, if not something greater.

Couple of reasons.

1. Cheap carbines through the DCM and surplus markets (same as with the .30 Carbine).

2. Cheap ammo through the DCM and surplus markets (same as with the .30 Carbine).

3. It would have been chambered for a cartridge that was actually a capable eastern deer cartridge. The .30 Carbine was never that.

Since when are the majority of deer hunters back east? I'm sure other carbine owners have had other uses for it than big game hunting over the last 70+ years.

Also, of the people, civilians I have known, and my father who had extensive experience with one in the USAF all made mention of how light the recoil was from the carbine. It seems to be one of its main attractions.

One thing I have noticed is YOUR OPINION TRUMPS EVERYONE ELSE’S on this forum.

In my humble opinion.

[USCS]

I’m fortunate enough to have trigger time on the M1carbine, M2 carbine, M1&M21/28 Thompson and various flavors of 1911. I am not a fan of the Thompsons or the 1911, I find them to be ergonomically incompatible with my body type. I’m short, have short arms, and small hands (insert your own joke here) The length of pull on the Thompson is to long and the fore grip on the 21/28 is too big. These factors combine to inhibit controllability, Plus it’s heavy. The 19ll just doesn’t fit my hand comfortably and I can’t hit a bull in the behind with one. I prefer the M1/M2 because they are more comfortable to carry and use, the ergonomics are more suitable for me and I can fire it more accurately.
As to the cartridges, the one that hits the target is more effective than the one that doesn’t.

[Mike Irwin]

"Since when are the majority of deer hunters back east?"

Did I say that?


Fact... when Carbines began to be released into the civilian market in the 1950s, there were articles and letters in magazines like American Rifleman and Guns & Ammo talking about the suitability of the carbine for Eastern hunting, where ranges are generally shorter and brush cover is more of an issue and wishing for a carbine-size/weight gun with a more powerful cartridge.

I have no clue whether people used the carbine for western deer hunting. I grew up hunting the east, in Pennsylvania, where pine cover and laurel scrub made light, fast handling rifles very attractive. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania law outlawed use of semi-automatics, so no matter what, the M1 Carbine was out. But it wasn't out in most of the other eastern states.

"Also, of the people, civilians I have known, and my father who had extensive experience with one in the USAF all made mention of how light the recoil was from the carbine. It seems to be one of its main attractions."

Did I say that the M1 Carbines recoil WASN'T light? Did I say it WASN'T attractive?

No.

Please reread what I actually said, and try to understand it this time.


"One thing I have noticed is YOUR OPINION TRUMPS EVERYONE ELSE’S on this forum."

Of course my opinion trump's everyone else's.

That's the literal definition of an opinion.

If you don't believe in your opinion, it's not an opinion. It's nothing.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, did some recoil calculations...

M1 Carbine. Classic military load, 110 gr bullet at 1,990 fps driven by appro. 18 grains of powder.

Recoil impulse of 4.3 ft. pounds.

M1 Garand. Classic military load, 150 gr. bullet at approx 2,740 fps driven by approx. 48 grains of powder.

Recoil impulse of 14.1 ft. pounds.


Here's were complete speculation comes in...

.351 caliber based carbine and cartridge... these numbers are purely speculative based on what I think COULD have been accomplished in such a round for the stated purposes of providing troops with a light, handy rifle to replace the M1911.

150 gr bullet at approximately 2,100 fps driven by an estimated 24 grains of powder in a carbine approximately 1 pound heavier (6.5 pounds). 1,468 ft pounds of energy, or about 500 ft pounds more than the .30 carbine and about half that of the Garand.

Recoil impulse of 7.9 ft. pounds.

Slightly less than double the recoil impulse of the classic M1 carbine, but a little more than half that of the M1 Garand, but with the recoil impulse attenuated by the gas system in all cases.

So yeah, a .351-chambered carbine would have kicked harder, but it would have been more powerful, would have delivered a harder hit on target with a larger diameter bullet in a package a little heavier than the classic M1 carbine but still a lot handier than an M1 Garand. And that likely would have gone a long way towards solving one of the biggest complaints against the carbine, especially in Korea -- that it lacked in stopping power.

Obviously all of this is navel gazing because it was never even considered. And, given the military's fixation on all things .30 caliber when it came to rifles, it's likely it would have been rejected had it been suggested, which is likely why Winchester suggested a modified .32 WSL cartridge.

One thing I've not done yet is to find a online ballistics program in which I can "fly" the bullets downrange to give an idea of the kind of trajectory a .351 carbine cartridge would have.

I'll work on that later.

[Aguila Blanca]

A real-world comparison might be the SKS and the 7.62x39 cartridge. The original 7.62x39 was a 122 gr projectile, 2,396 fps, with 25 gr of powder. Recoil calculates at 6.5 ft. lbs.

[Mike Irwin]

I looked at the the 7.62x39 (and the 7.92x33) cartridge, but the SKS rolled out with an overall weight closer to the Garand with a lighter bullet and a higher chamber pressure.

Too many variables for me to work in with out my eyes crossing. I couldn't come up with what I thought was a valid comparable estimate. (Maybe I just didn't think about it hard enough, but I have fired my SKS with 150-gr. bullets (Winchester, I believe), and it kicks a bunch more but it's still not objectionable, especially since I replaced the short military stock with an aftermarket stock that fits me a LOT better.)

Same with the 7.92x33 Kurz, which had an even lower recoil impulse because it was chambered in the Stg 44, which weighed in at over 10 pounds, and closer to 12 with a full magazine.

[Jim Watson]

When DCM turned loose of carbines cheap, there was a good bit of wildcatting done.

There was the .30 Kurtz, a bottleneck comparable to the German 8mm short.
There was a .375 made by running a cutoff .30-06 case into a .38-40 die.
No doubt recoil was stout but these were meant as lightweight hunting rifles, not likely shot a case of laboriously formed ammo of a Saturday morning.

Later on, there was a shop rebarelling carbines to .45 Win Mag.

The neat thing about all those was that the regular carbine magazine would accept 7 of the .473" rounds.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

I looked at the the 7.62x39 (and the 7.92x33) cartridge, but the SKS rolled out with an overall weight closer to the Garand with a lighter bullet and a higher chamber pressure.

You're right. The SKS weighs 8.5 pounds and the M1 Garand weighs 9.5 pounds (both according to Wikipedia).

I admit to being more than a bit surprised. I have an M1 Garand, I trained with the M14 in the Army, and I owned an SKS. I would not have thought that the SKS was anywhere near as heavy as an M1 Garand or an M14.

[Mike Irwin]

"I admit to being more than a bit surprised."

I know, right? It really doesn't handle as if it's 8.5 pounds at all.

I was equally shocked the first time I really started working with my SKS and then I looked up the specs on it...

Mine was actually a little lighter than normal spec because the bayonet had to come off to get it into the United States and the Chinese wood stock was something damned close to balsa wood, but still.

I was surprised.

Now that I have the composite rifle stock on it it's probably closer to 8.5 or even 9 pounds.

Shooting it is an absolute dream. It kicks a bit, but not really.

[Mike Irwin]

"Later on, there was a shop rebarelling carbines to .45 Win Mag."

I had thought I had heard something along those lines but I couldn't remember for certain, so I didn't mention it.

And here's a discussion from a guy with one: http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/...topic5274.html

So, that makes me believe that a military designed carbine in .351 would not only have been viable, it would have been more than workable, usable, and effective.

Granted, the .351 parent case was still longer than the .45 Win. Mag, so it would have likely required a slightly longer action, but still doable.

[tangolima]

A M1 carbine in .300 blackout would be cool. Anything bottle necked would be cool. It opens the door to more bullet choices.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

"Later on, there was a shop rebarelling carbines to .45 Win Mag."

I followed this a bit, back then, as I was interested and leaning towards getting one. It wasn't cheap, required you to supply the carbine, and if I remember right, turned the 15rnd mag into a 10, or maybe an 8 rounder. Also they didn't rebarrel the guns, at first, they just rebored the barrels.

This left the barrel pretty thin, and from what I heard, worked ok, BUT, after a year or so, there were several reports of barrels splitting.

After this happened, they rebarreled the carbines with a heavier (thicker) barrel, and apparently solved that problem. A bit after that, the shop stopped doing the conversions, I don't know why, but probably a cost/benefit decision.

I don't have the specs, but I think the converted carbine with the heavier barrel went a pound (Or maybe more) heavier than the original .30 M1 carbines.

I'm sure that a heavier, more powerful round could have been put into the carbine, or a different rifle made to fit the niche the carbine was meant to fill, and would have been more effective, which is always a benefit to the user.

However, remember the mindset of the US military, before, and during WWII.

While happy to get "the best", what the Military actively sought and demanded was "good enough", not "the best". Good enough to perform the mission. Good enough to match the enemy and defeat them, and, within budget.

As the war progressed, our military developed a desire for the best, in some areas, though small arms was pretty far down on their list by then, as the arms we had were getting the job done.

A lot of the pre war doctrine wound up being tossed out, as inefficient, ineffective, or even just flat wrong as the war progressed and we learned the lessons of modern combat.

One of the things frequently overlooked about the carbine, while it might have been made "better", what it was worked well enough, AND we got it into frontline service less than a year after Pearl Harbor, and in ever increasing numbers from then on.

[Pumpkin]

How is it assumed that a rifle .351 bullet would be that much more effective than a .308 when we can’t agree on whether a .451 pistol bullet is more effective than a .355 pistol bullet discussed at length in earlier threads?

Would a GI want to sacrifice X number of rounds on their person to a larger dia. caliber of unknown advantage?

[44 AMP]

How is it assumed that a rifle .351 bullet would be that much more effective than a .308 when we can’t agree on whether a .451 pistol bullet is more effective than a .355 pistol bullet discussed at length in earlier threads?

There is more involved than just bullet diameter. Mass and speed are also factors, big ones. A round developed from the .351 Winchester for a modern (WWII era) carbine, ought to be able to throw a .35 cal 180gr (ish) bullet in the 1700-1900 fps range (depending on the working pressure of the new round) and that would beat the heck out of a .30 bullet of 110gr at 1900fps for measurable factor of energy, and the un-measurable "stopping power" factor as well.

The argument over .355 vs .451 pistol bullets is based entirely on existing pistol rounds and their very different velocities. I get the argument that a 9mm at 11-1200fps is as good as a .45 at 850fps. What I don't hear is anyone claiming its as good as a .45 at 1200fps. Speed, and size/weight are important factors.

Would a GI want to sacrifice X number of rounds on their person to a larger dia. caliber of unknown advantage?

What the GI wants (if they even know) is rarely an important factor. What the GI needs, as determined by the brass (aka management) is what they get, along with orders to "make it work".

[Pumpkin]

Well, you are going to have to find room for .220+“ of cartridge length in the gun.

If you seat the bullet that much deeper your probably getting around 1500 fps rather than 1800.

At some point, more rainbow in the trajectory and amount of ammo in the gun and carried by the soldier become a negative.

[44 AMP]

Well, you are going to have to find room for .220+“ of cartridge length in the gun.

Possibly, but that is an assumption, using existing M1 carbine dimensions, and an assumed length for the hypothetical new cartridge, the dimensions of which have not yet been introduced into this discussion.

If you seat the bullet that much deeper your probably getting around 1500 fps rather than 1800.

"that much deeper"? than what? We're talking about a new round based off the .351 Win case, with some changes. The obvious one would be to make it rimless. Other changes, such as a change in length (for example, shorter) have not yet been brought up. Indeed, the idea that a new rifle for the new round, meeting the intent of the actual historical M1 Carbine has not been ruled out, either. What if the new gun were simply the carbine, slightly scaled up for the new .35 carbine round?

At some point, more rainbow in the trajectory and amount of ammo in the gun and carried by the soldier become a negative.

Certainly true, but at what point, and who decides? The US Army decided on the M1 Carbine in late October of 41, the first ones were delivered in the spring of 42, and we had enough in service that they went to war during operation TORCH in November that year.

Something else could have been chosen, why it wasn't, you'd have to ask the people who made those decisions at the time. We got the M1 Carbine and the .30 carbine round, and we used them, both for their intended purpose, and as a front line infantry combat weapon, as well.

Yes, its on the light side, but since it did work, we did use it.